Am I saying that MB needs to make up for poor play by the rest of the team? Sure I am. But that's his job as QB.

If you really believe this statement, then there is no point in even discussing NFL football with you. It's one thing to manage the game, make your teammates better, and win games. It's another to have to make up for the fact that the defense gave up 400 yds in a game.

It's another thing to have to score 30 points every week. It's another thing t have to make up for injuries to the number one receiver. It's another thing to have to make up for allowing opposing team QB's to have a 103 passer rating vs. us. It's another thing to make amends for every single thing that happens in a game. This is unrealistic, and down right ridiculous.

What quarterback outside of Manning and Brady and maybe McNabb, could you plug into this team and automatically reverse our record?

That's right, you don't wanna address reality. You want to fantasize that a guy who has never taken a live snap (and doesn't take snaps in practice for that matter) can come in and do for this team what pro-bowlers like McNabb and Favre can't do for theirs.

Is Brunell a top 5 QB in the league? No, but you all need to wake up and face the reality that we don't have Manning, we don't have Palmer, we don't have Favre....we have Mark Brunell, and right now he's playing well enough to win NFC East style football....we just have to run the ball, control the clock and play better than second to last defense to win games.

Since you played QB for a lot of years (maybe 30) I hereby pronounce you the one and only reason that your teams lost games.

You ARE kidding, right? We won this past week against the Cowboys, but did not beat them. How did we do against the Giants? How did we do against the Cowboys the first time around? I know these games are in the past, but your loyalty seems to be there as well. Brunell is washed up. Period.

I would also like to ask you where Brunell has managed the game, making his team better? I also hate to say, but if he has, we still haven't won many games.

Seems like you're the one with convenient amnesia. I seem to remember Brunell quarterbacking us to within one game of the Superbowl. He hasn't made his teammates better??? Ahh...okay....I seem to remember Santana Moss making the Pro-Bowl for the first time last season and breaking Redskins receiving records...........RECORDS....meaning he got more yards than Monk, Taylor, Sanders, Clark, all of them....he can't throw the ball to himself. But, sorry that was all a fluke. I have no factual basis for my positions.

Yes, Brunell WAS the QB when were were within one game of the SB, but could he get us there? Hell no. He couldn't even ge us past Tampa....the D did. Moss made most of his yards after the catch, because he can. I think Moss deserved it, but giving Brunell the credit? Give me some of what you're smoking.

PLEASE don't respond to this unless you want to take it to smack. These recents posts are just garbage.

Champsturf wrote:Yes, Brunell WAS the QB when were were within one game of the SB, but could he get us there? Hell no. He couldn't even ge us past Tampa....the D did. Moss made most of his yards after the catch, because he can. I think Moss deserved it, but giving Brunell the credit? Give me some of what you're smoking.

PLEASE don't respond to this unless you want to take it to smack. These recents posts are just garbage.

Aristotle's definition of identity is: That which persists through change. If I change the color of my hair, my clothes, and start quacking like a duck, we can still figure out who I am because none of those changes affects my identity--in other words, I am essentially NOT a brown haired, business-casual clothes wearing, non-quacking thing. I am something else.

Mark Brunell has conveniently persisted through 2 and a half seasons here in Washington, and therefore so have his detractors. To find the essential property of a hater's knowledge of Brunell, we can see what persists through change.

* When Mark Brunell played on a 6-10 team in 2004 . . . the record was his fault.
* When Mark Brunell played terribly in that 6-10 season . . . it was his fault.
* When it was revealed that Brunell had a nagging injury in '04 . . . it was his fault (apparently for not benching himself).
* When Mark Brunell replaced Ramsey in game 1 of 2005, it was a terrible sign.
* When Brunell helped get a win against the Bears, the claim was that it was only the Bears (who turned out to be better than everyone thought).
* When Brunell completed 2 bombs to Moss for a miracle win in Dallas . . . it was all Moss and not Brunell. At most it was "one good moment" amidst terrible play.
* When Brunell had a statistically poor stretch in the year but was helping winning games . . . his stats revealed that he was terrible.
* When Brunell had great statistics but we were losing close ones . . . it was his fault.
* When we made it to the playoffs after an awesome 5-0 run . . . it was in spite of him.
* When we beat Tampa . . . it was all defense and in spite of Brunell.
* When we lost to Seattle . . . it was his fault.
* Whenever we lose this season . . . it's his fault.
* The fact that Jason Campbell can't play quite yet is somehow his fault.
* Whenever we win . . . it's in spite of Brunell.
* When Brunell's stats are good (as they are this year), that part of the argument is simply ignored and everything is still his fault.

The interesting thing is that, no matter how conditions change, Brunell is always terrible and to blame. In other words, nearly everything about Brunell and his circumstances has undergone some kind of change (winning / losing, injury / healthy, good performance / bad performance, good team / bad team, etc.), and yet no matter how things change, there is always the constant: pessimism and hate.

Therefore, the "knowledge" that detractors rely on has the essential property of always being hate.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

Am I saying that MB needs to make up for poor play by the rest of the team? Sure I am. But that's his job as QB.

If you really believe this statement, then there is no point in even discussing NFL football with you. It's one thing to manage the game, make your teammates better, and win games. It's another to have to make up for the fact that the defense gave up 400 yds in a game.

It's another thing to have to score 30 points every week. It's another thing t have to make up for injuries to the number one receiver. It's another thing to have to make up for allowing opposing team QB's to have a 103 passer rating vs. us. It's another thing to make amends for every single thing that happens in a game. This is unrealistic, and down right ridiculous.

What quarterback outside of Manning and Brady and maybe McNabb, could you plug into this team and automatically reverse our record?

That's right, you don't wanna address reality. You want to fantasize that a guy who has never taken a live snap (and doesn't take snaps in practice for that matter) can come in and do for this team what pro-bowlers like McNabb and Favre can't do for theirs.

Is Brunell a top 5 QB in the league? No, but you all need to wake up and face the reality that we don't have Manning, we don't have Palmer, we don't have Favre....we have Mark Brunell, and right now he's playing well enough to win NFC East style football....we just have to run the ball, control the clock and play better than second to last defense to win games.

You're right - there's no point in discussing NFL football with me. I believe that a QB's job is to lead and inspire his team, play well when no one else is. You believe that a QB's job is just to manage the game, and whatever happens, happens. He's just another guy on the field, like the holder on field goals. You're looking at his stats, and claiming that he's playing well. No matter what I say, you'll be convinced that Brunell is awesome because you see his passer rating and his TD/INT ratio. So I'm done wasting my energy.

The Hogster wrote:Since you played QB for a lot of years (maybe 30) I hereby pronounce you the one and only reason that your teams lost games.

And once again with the insults, and the twisting of words. Just another reason to avoid rational discussions with you. Whatever I say, you make assumptions for me. No wonder you and TRO get along so well.

I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

joebagadonuts wrote:And once again with the insults, and the twisting of words. Just another reason to avoid rational discussions with you. Whatever I say, you make assumptions for me. No wonder you and TRO get along so well.

What happened to the guy calling others children for taking the "less mature" route?

WTH?

Why involve me in your mudslinging with The Hogster? For all I care, you can take your 30 years of pro football playing (you're the expert at that level, right?), your bag of donuts, and your expertise on all things football, polish them up real nice, turn them sucker sideways and....

...leave me out of it.

P.S. I don't need The Hogster's help to twist your words (I've elevated that on my own to an art form ), and we don't even get along that well. He's admitted he's no Brunell lover, so, in my book...he's dead to me.

joebagadonuts wrote:And once again with the insults, and the twisting of words. Just another reason to avoid rational discussions with you. Whatever I say, you make assumptions for me. No wonder you and TRO get along so well.

What happened to the guy calling others children for taking the "less mature" route?

WTH?

Why involve me in your mudslinging with The Hogster? For all I care, you can take your 30 years of pro football playing (you're the expert at that level, right?), your bag of donuts, and your expertise on all things football, polish them up real nice, turn them sucker sideways and....

...leave me out of it.

My apologies.

I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

die cowboys die wrote:CONGRATULATIONS! you are the winner of the award!

Thank you! I was not aware of you being in a position to declare winners or losers here.

.. we all come on here every day and make hundreds/thousands of posts out of our passion for the team, because we're not fans.

Not that it makes any difference but I really do not think that (aside from the obvious low lifes) any of the anti Brunell fans are not true fans because I think they are suporting the team with constructive criticism, but, there are a couple of obvious anti Brunell fans that have taken a position that I think indicates they are not a true fan and IMO that only applies to those low lifes. This only applies to anyone who has advocated for Brunell to be injured and even requested that someone would be doing us and the team a huge favor by injuring Brunell.

..the Anti-Brunellians could easily make the argument that "if you are not against brunell, you are not a fan" since we firmly believe that brunell is a destructive force to the redskins. but have you ever seen such an accusation? get over yourself. you are not a "better fan" than anyone else on this board.

I have never claimed to be a "better fan" than anyone but I have pointed out how I feel about low lifes who advocate injuries to players on a team (any team) and they are not "true fans" in my opinion. You have a very selective interpretation of what some of us post here but I am sure that most understand where you are coming from. Most of us understand the situation with our team and are hoping we can find a way to get to the playoffs no matter who is a part of the team. I think it is obvious where your feelings lie and that is your cross to bear!

It is a little satisying personally that you are so irritated by me, that you need to get "creative" with your posts While I am all for the QB that gives my team the best chance for succes I also think that if Gibbs decides to keep Brunell as the starting QB for next year (which I highly doubt) it might have some off the field benefits as well! Cheers

P A T I E N C E - The Redskins will improve the product on the field if Dan Snyder just let's Scott & his FO do their jobs Dan needs to stop screwing things up and let Scott get this franchise back together

Champsturf wrote:Yes, Brunell WAS the QB when were were within one game of the SB, but could he get us there? Hell no. He couldn't even ge us past Tampa....the D did. Moss made most of his yards after the catch, because he can. I think Moss deserved it, but giving Brunell the credit? Give me some of what you're smoking.

PLEASE don't respond to this unless you want to take it to smack. These recents posts are just garbage.

Aristotle's definition of identity is: That which persists through change. If I change the color of my hair, my clothes, and start quacking like a duck, we can still figure out who I am because none of those changes affects my identity--in other words, I am essentially NOT a brown haired, business-casual clothes wearing, non-quacking thing. I am something else.

Mark Brunell has conveniently persisted through 2 and a half seasons here in Washington, and therefore so have his detractors. To find the essential property of a hater's knowledge of Brunell, we can see what persists through change.

* When Mark Brunell played on a 6-10 team in 2004 . . . the record was his fault.* When Mark Brunell played terribly in that 6-10 season . . . it was his fault.* When it was revealed that Brunell had a nagging injury in '04 . . . it was his fault (apparently for not benching himself).* When Mark Brunell replaced Ramsey in game 1 of 2005, it was a terrible sign.* When Brunell helped get a win against the Bears, the claim was that it was only the Bears (who turned out to be better than everyone thought).* When Brunell completed 2 bombs to Moss for a miracle win in Dallas . . . it was all Moss and not Brunell. At most it was "one good moment" amidst terrible play.* When Brunell had a statistically poor stretch in the year but was helping winning games . . . his stats revealed that he was terrible.* When Brunell had great statistics but we were losing close ones . . . it was his fault.* When we made it to the playoffs after an awesome 5-0 run . . . it was in spite of him.* When we beat Tampa . . . it was all defense and in spite of Brunell.* When we lost to Seattle . . . it was his fault.* Whenever we lose this season . . . it's his fault.* The fact that Jason Campbell can't play quite yet is somehow his fault.* Whenever we win . . . it's in spite of Brunell.* When Brunell's stats are good (as they are this year), that part of the argument is simply ignored and everything is still his fault.

The interesting thing is that, no matter how conditions change, Brunell is always terrible and to blame. In other words, nearly everything about Brunell and his circumstances has undergone some kind of change (winning / losing, injury / healthy, good performance / bad performance, good team / bad team, etc.), and yet no matter how things change, there is always the constant: pessimism and hate.

Therefore, the "knowledge" that detractors rely on has the essential property of always being hate.

Well, since you quoted me, I'll assume that you're saying that I've said all of those things about Brunell....if that's the case, you're wrong. What I did get out of that dissertation is highlighted. Brunell has changed, but his core is still the same. He is no longer a qualilty starting QB in today's NFL.

Well, I was speaking (and speaking, with reference to Aristotle, tongue in cheek) about the arguments that I have seen from the Brunell detractors / anti-Brunell / haters / depressed with Brunell crowd in general.

You may not have given each of those explanations but I have heard each and every one of those assertions on the board as we have watched the Skins develop over the past couple of seasons.

(For example, I've been asked on this message board to name one thing other than the Moss bombs in week 2 that Brunell showed us! If that isn't ripping due credit from Brunell I don't know what is!)

My original point was entirely that, given Brunell's varied experience in D.C., if criticism of Brunell has persisted, there is something motivating the criticism other than simple observation.

The Hogster brings his viewpoint to the table and you call it garbage, presumably because only a fool would think that Brunell had anything to do with victory in last season's games. That's what caused me to write my previous post. Not that you said every last proposition, but because you can't seem to tolerate another viewpoint in the discussion.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, I was speaking (and speaking, with reference to Aristotle, tongue in cheek) about the arguments that I have seen from the Brunell detractors / anti-Brunell / haters / depressed with Brunell crowd in general.

You may not have given each of those explanations but I have heard each and every one of those assertions on the board as we have watched the Skins develop over the past couple of seasons.

(For example, I've been asked on this message board to name one thing other than the Moss bombs in week 2 that Brunell showed us! If that isn't ripping due credit from Brunell I don't know what is!)

My original point was entirely that, given Brunell's varied experience in D.C., if criticism of Brunell has persisted, there is something motivating the criticism other than simple observation.

The Hogster brings his viewpoint to the table and you call it garbage, presumably because only a fool would think that Brunell had anything to do with victory in last season's games. That's what caused me to write my previous post. Not that you said every last proposition, but because you can't seem to tolerate another viewpoint in the discussion.

Well, I guess that would work, except you've designated about half of the people entering this discussion as being blind.

"You can have a Model T in any color that you'd like . . . so long as it's black."

Tell me exactly how someone can show you that support for Brunell isn't only blind faith in Gibbs. Give me some criteria for what that argument would look like. Right now, it doesn't seem like you'd accept an analysis of statistics (since those seem to favor Brunell currently), an appeal to the coaches' expertise, an appeal to the unified attitude of our players (including a very personalized answer from Lloyd himself), an appeal to history that shows Brunell was capable of helping this team win into the playoffs only last year, or arguments that talk about the readiness of Campbell weighed against the need to win now. If one side of each of these arguments is "blind," obviously discussion can't move forward. But perhaps you could help me out--I am slow to learn, and readily admit this--and tell me exactly how I can show you that these arguments aren't simply "blind" from the outset?

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan